Main water and gas bonding question

[JohnW2]

...Only a problem for you if you were one of those people who believes that to unnecessarily bond something which is not an extraneous-c-p (which is what the pipe entering the flat would then be) is undesirable, since it can theoretically increase hazards.

. Well, yes, I didn't want to 'name names' when I talked of "one of those people who...." However....

As has been said that would remove any earth potential but then it may be possible to introduce other potential of which you would be unaware. ... I would, as is illustrated in GN8, separately bond each flat to make each an equipotential zone.

So are you saying that you would bond the pipe (to the flat's MET) where it entered the flat even if it had a very high (probably not measurable) impedance to earth, because of an insulating section?

Kind Regards, John

 

[electrospark]

Thanks all for the feed back, sparked a bit of a debate...

The reason for this question initially was that we have been carrying out EICRs now for some time and should there be no main bonding present within an individual flat then this would be noted as a code 2 on the report even if there is main bonding at the origin of the common parts. So basically each dwelling withing a block of flats was its own zone.
Another contractor completed our remedial works which was bonding within a flat, they said that this wasn't required as the installation is bonded in the common parts at the origin which indeed it is. And now after speaking with the Nic they are correct.
The nic also did the usual sit on the fence and said you should carry out a risk assessment for each property. Hmmm. Yes I suppose you should but you never get a firm answer from them.

I'm still a little unsure how I proceed from here... In the next EICR that flags up no main bonding in the flat but there is bonding in the common parts at the origin, how would you record this on the report??? Would you record the absence of bonding in this case as a code 3 as opposed to a C2 what I previously would have done?

Many thanks for all your replies.

 

[JohnW2]

I'm still a little unsure how I proceed from here... In the next EICR that flags up no main bonding in the flat but there is bonding in the common parts at the origin, who would you record this on the report??? Would you record the absence of bonding in this case as a code 3 as opposed to a C2 what I previously would have done?

I can understand the difficulty/problem - and I fear that it probably comes down to what NIC said about a case-by-case risk assessment. I would say that (for reasons I've previously mentioned), in electrical terms the flat would be perfectly safe so long at the main bonding in the common parts of the building remained present and intact. The risk assessment therefore probably relates mainly to how certain/confident you feel you can be that this bonding in the common parts will remain present and intact.

Kind Regards, John

 

[EFLImpudence]

So are you saying that you would bond the pipe (to the flat's MET) where it entered the flat even if it had a very high (probably not measurable) impedance to earth, because of an insulating section?

That would be extremely unlikely to be the case in a block of flats, let alone in your particular flat, so I don't think it would occur.

However, even if it were the case, I would bond it.

 

[JohnW2]

So are you saying that you would bond the pipe (to the flat's MET) where it entered the flat even if it had a very high (probably not measurable) impedance to earth, because of an insulating section?

That would be extremely unlikely to be the case in a block of flats, let alone in your particular flat, so I don't think it would occur.

I didn't suggest it was likely, and essentially agree with you - but it did appear to be the OP's main concern about relying on the 'communal' bonding of the whole building - namely that someone could come along and insert a bit of plastic pipe between the communal main bonding and the entry of the pipe into the flat.

However, even if it were the case, I would bond it.

Fair enough - but how does that fit with the view of "one of those people who believe that to unnecessarily bond something (which is effectively insulated from earth) can actually increase hazards"?

Kind Regards, John

 

[EFLImpudence]

I didn't suggest it was likely, and essentially agree with you - but it did appear to be the OP's main concern about relying on the 'communal' bonding of the whole building - namely that someone could come along and insert a bit of plastic pipe between the communal main bonding and the entry of the pipe into the flat.

The inserting of plastic pipe was never a concern; the 'danger' is the more likely removal of the bond.

However, even if it were the case, I would bond it.

Fair enough - but how does that fit with the view of "one of those people who believe that to unnecessarily bond something (which is effectively insulated from earth) can actually increase hazards"?

I consider this to be purely hypothetical because of other connections to CPCs and the bonding in other flats but it is the lesser evil because the situation is dependent on unknown actions in the other flats.

To be certain it may be preferable (if it were the case) to permanently isolate your flat supply with a length of plastic.

 

[JohnW2]

I didn't suggest it was likely, and essentially agree with you - but it did appear to be the OP's main concern about relying on the 'communal' bonding of the whole building - namely that someone could come along and insert a bit of plastic pipe between the communal main bonding and the entry of the pipe into the flat.

The inserting of plastic pipe was never a concern; the 'danger' is the more likely removal of the bond.

It's certainly never been a concern to me. I have also agreed that (to my mind) the main actual concern should be that the main bond in communal areas could possibly be removed at some point in time. However, as per the quote of my words above, the plastic pipe issue did seem to be the OP's main concern...

... I have spoken with the NICEIC who advise me that this is ok and that the individual flats do not to be bonded. My question is, what is saying that the pipes have been connected/repaired out of sight in the common parts with plastic and that there is no continuity. I should do an R2 reading to ensure the pipe work is continuous to the flat but should this be within certain tolerances?

Fair enough - but how does that fit with the view of "one of those people who believe that to unnecessarily bond something (which is effectively insulated from earth) can actually increase hazards"?

I consider this to be purely hypothetical because of other connections to CPCs and the bonding in other flats but it is the lesser evil because the situation is dependent on unknown actions in the other flats.

Fair enough.

To be certain it may be preferable (if it were the case) to permanently isolate your flat supply with a length of plastic.

Yes, in many situations, that would be ideal (in all situations, not just flats). Unfortunately, it cannot be done with gas pipes - so if they enter the building as metal extraneous-c-ps, one is stuck!

Kind Regards, John

 

[electrospark]

So with regard to completing a condition report and there being no bonding present in the flat but is in the common parts how would you record this?

Would you ignore there is no bonding in the flat?

Or would you record this as a Code 3 observation?

Would you recommend that this is installed?

 

[JohnW2]

So with regard to completing a condition report and there being no bonding present in the flat but is in the common parts how would you record this? ... Would you ignore there is no bonding in the flat? ... Or would you record this as a Code 3 observation? ...Would you recommend that this is installed?

Opinions/views clearly vary, so I think you have to formulate your own view, supplemented by the case-by-case risk assessment which has been mentioned. One certainly could at least recommend that bonding be installed within the flat, on the basis that this is the only way of ensuring that bonding remains satisfactory without reliance on the continuing integrity of things happening outside of the flat (and perhaps beyond the control of the flat owner or occupier). At the other extreme, if part of the bonding in the common parts was 'exposed' and one judged that there was a significant risk of interference (such as due to copper theft), then one might feel that it was more essential that the flat had its own bonding, and code accordingly.

It will be interesting to hear other views.

Kind Regards, John

 

[EFLImpudence]

So with regard to completing a condition report and there being no bonding present in the flat but is in the common parts how would you record this?

"It is clear that BS7671 requires protective equipotential bonding in each and every installation ... , and this would apply equally to separate installations of a multiple-occupancy building."
GN8.

I think flats are separate premises and their installations and origins are separate.
I would give it a Code 2.

Would you ignore there is no bonding in the flat?

No.

Or would you record this as a Code 3 observation?

Do you think it potentially dangerous or merely improvement recommended?

Would you recommend that this is installed?

More than that therefore more than code 3?

 

[electrospark]

Ok, well i think we will continue as we have been, which is noting this as a code 2 and advise to install it.

My only issue is we may end up in a bit of a debate with this other company who are completing our remedial works. They are saying this should be a code 3 as there is bonding in the common parts.

Maybe i should have been a plumber...

 

[EFLImpudence]

Ok, well i think we will continue as we have been, which is noting this as a code 2 and advise to install it.

My only issue is we may end up in a bit of a debate with this other company who are completing our remedial works. They are saying this should be a code 3 as there is bonding in the common parts.

It is your report and you should do as you think correct with no harassment from other parties.
You are responsible for it.

They can choose to complain or ignore it; that is up to them.

Maybe i should have been a plumber...

Nah!